Mixed hydrophilic/hydrophobic fiber media for liquid-liquid coalescence

ABSTRACT

An immiscible lipophilic or hydrophilic liquid phase is separated respectively from a continuous hydrophilic or a lipophilic phase liquid. Fibers having hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties are formed into a filter. The separation mechanism involves coalescence of the small droplets into larger droplets as the immiscible liquid flows through the fiber filter, and release of the large immiscible droplets from the filter. With respect to separation of a hydrophilic immiscible fluid in a lipophilic continuous fluid, the hydrophobic fibers cause small water droplets to migrate towards the hydrophilic fibers whereby large droplets are formed on hydrophilic surface. The large droplets coalescence until they are so large that they are released and drained off of the filter. The filter media can be designed by mixing hydrophilic and hydrophobic fibers in various proportions to achieve an optimum wettability range for separation of the immiscible liquid from the continuous phase liquid.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This patent application is a divisional application of, and claims the benefit and priority date of, U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/655,823, filed Jan. 7, 2010, which claims the benefit and priority of U.S. provisional application 61/144,226, filed Jan. 13, 2009, which are both hereby fully incorporated by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to the wettability of an immiscible liquid (e.g. emulsion) such as water in a continuous phase liquid such as oil utilizing a filter that has significant influence on the water removal efficiency. Wettability is an important parameter in designing such filter media. The wettability of the filter media is mainly governed by surface properties of fiber material and porosity of filter. The surface properties of filter can be expressed in terms of hydrophilic or hydrophobic nature of the filter. The wettability of the filter can be characterized using the concept of Lipophilic to Hydrophilic ratio (L/H) by using a modified Washburn equation that is based on capillary rise phenomena. Oil and water are used as reference liquids in the wettability characterization. In liquid-liquid coalescence filtration, separation efficiency depends on various factors including face velocity, fiber structures, fiber geometry, fiber orientations, etc., and also wettability of filter especially when interfacial tension between liquid phases is low. The hydrophilic and hydrophobic fibers used in the filter capture the immiscible liquid and form drops on the hydrophilic material that stay on the fiber surface for extended periods of time. Fibers having varying hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties can be mixed into filter media, so that the hydrophobic fibers will aid in drop migration towards the hydrophilic fibers and the formation of large drops on the hydrophilic surface. Large drops are desired for coalescence and drainage.

The hydrophilic/hydrophobic filters can be utilized in the petrochemical industry as well as for fuels for vehicles including automobiles, planes, trains, and ships.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

In recent years, separation of water-in-oil emulsions has become industrially important. Water present in liquid fuels can combine with chemicals in fuels, such as sulfur, to form corrosive compounds which can damage sensitive engine parts. Corrosion is a major cause of reduction of engine life and efficiency. In addition, surfactants present in liquid fuels lower the interfacial tension between water and fuel and the problem of separation becomes more insidious. This can also cause a product to be off-specification due to haze and color [1, 2]. The water is present in fuels as primary emulsions with drop sizes greater than 100 μm and as secondary emulsions with drop sizes less than 100 μm. The separation of primary emulsions is often accomplished by gravity settling or mechanical means. However, coalescence filtration using fibrous filters is an efficient and economical way to separate secondary dispersions.

The coalescence process occurs in three main steps. First, the fibrous bed captures water droplets. Second, the collected water phase migrates through the bed and coalesces. Third, the enlarged droplets are released from the fiber surfaces [3]. Coalescer performance is generally characterized by separation efficiency and pressure drop. The separation efficiency is highly dependent on the characteristic properties of the dispersions (e.g. composition, density, viscosity drop size) and the fiber bed (material, diameter, surface structure, porosity) [4]. Flow rate is an important factor in water-in-oil dispersion flow, as it controls the capture mechanism and capture probability of droplets and the distribution of the dispersed phase. [3].

Shin [3] shows that wettability of the surface has effect on drop attachment on silane coated glass rods. It is known that critical surface tension of a solid to the liquid surface tension determines the character of solid wettability [5]. Wettability of filter medium can be represented by its hydrophobic or hydrophilic behavior. Moorthy [6] performed the coalescence experiments with surface functionalized filter media and showed that intermediate wettability gives better performance.

Research results and common experience in industry show that coalescing filters work best with an intermediate wettability. If the medium is too wetting it tends to load up with liquid drops which restricts the air flow and results in an undesired high pressure drop. If the medium is too non-wetting the droplets captured on the fibers quickly move along the fibers or leave the fibers before they have a chance to coalesce and hence the separation is not efficient.

Common practice to control the wettability is by selecting a material from which the fibers are made that has an intermediate wettability, or by applying a coating, such as silanes, that gives the surface of the fiber structures the intermediate wettability. The difficulty here is finding the right material or coating that has the best wettability for a given application. This approach does not allow for incremental changes in wettability.

The above-noted references as well as others are as follows:

-   1. Lloyd A. Spielman et al., “A review of progress in the     coalescence of liquid-liquid suspension and a new theoretical     framework for Coalescence by porous media are presented” Industrial     and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 62, No. 10, 10-24 Oct. 1970. -   2. Improve suspended water removal from fuels: A better     understanding of molecular forces enhances free water separator     selection R. L. Brown, Jr., et al., Pall Corp., East Hills, N.Y.     from Hydrocarbon Processing®, December 1993. -   3. C. Shin and G. G. Chase “The effect of wettability on drop     attachment to glass rods”, Journal of Fluid Particle Separation,     Vol. 16, No. 1, 1-7, 2004. -   4. Hauke Speth., et al., “Coalescence of secondary dispersions in     fiber beds”, Separation and Purification Technology, Vol. 29,     113-119, 2002. -   5. Secerov Sokolovic, et al., “Effect of the Nature of Different     Polymeric Fibers on Steady-State Bed Coalescence of an Oil-in-Water     Emulsion”, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Vol. 43 (20),     6490-6495, 2004. -   6. K. Moorthy, et. al., “Effect of Wettability on liquid-liquid     coalescence”, AFS Conference Ann Harbor, September 2005. -   7. Erbil H. Y., et al., “Transformation of Simple surface into     super-hydrophobic surface”, Science, Vol. 299, 1377-1380, 2003. -   8. Washburn E. W, “The dynamics of capillary flow”, The American     Physical Society, VOX-V II, No. 3, 374-375. -   9. Murata Toshiaki et al., “A modified penetration rate for     measuring the wettability of Coal Powders”, Journal of Japan Oil and     Chemists Society, Vol. 32 (9), 498-502, 1983. -   10. Kondo, Hiroshi, et al., “Lipid compounds in the sediment cores     of Lake Kawahara Oike, pagasaki Prefecture, Japan], documenting its     change from brackish water to fresh water”, Daigaku Kyoikugakubu     Shizen Kagaku Kenkyu Hokoku, Vol. 49 13-25, (1993). -   11. Voyutskii et al., (1953 Voyutskii, S. S, Akl′yanova, K. A.,     Panich, R., Fodiman, N., “Mechanism of separation of disperse phase     of emulsions during filtration”, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 91 (1953),     1155 -   12. Hazlett (1969) Hazlett, R. N., “Fibrous Bed coalescence of     water”, I & EC Fundamentals, 8 (1969), 625 -   13. Clayfield et al, (1984) Clayfield, E. J, Dixon, A. G, Foulds, A.     W and Miller, R. J. L, “Coalescence of secondary emulsions”, Journal     of Colloid and Interface Science, 104 (1985), 498 -   14. Moses and Fg (1985) Moses, S. F. and Ng, K. M. (1985) A visual     study of the breakdown of emulsions in porous coalescers. Chem. Eng.     Sci., 40 (12): 2339-2350. -   15. Basu (1993) Basu, S, “A Study on effect of wetting on mechanism     of coalescence in a model coalescer”, Journal of Colloid and     Interface Science, 159 (1993), 68 -   16. Bin Ding, et al., Conversion of an electro-sound nanofibrous     cellulose acetate mat from a super-hydrophilic to super-hydrophobic     surface. Nanotechnology 17 (2006) 4332-4339 -   17. Mane R. S, et al., A simple and low temperature process for     super-hydrophilic Rutile Ti02 thin films growth, Applied Surface     Science, 253 (2006) 581-585 -   18. Ren O, et al., Study on the Superhydrophilicity of the Si02-Ti02     thin films prepared by sol-gel method at room temperature, J. of     Sol-gel Science and Technology, 29 (2004) 13 1-136 -   19. Guo Z, et al., Stable bio-mimetic Super-hydrophobic engineering     materials, JACS Communications 127 (2005) 15670-15671 -   20. Ma Y., et al., Fabrication of super-hydrophobic film from PMMA     with intrinsic contact angle below 90′. Polymer 48 (2007) 7455-7460 -   21. Van der wal P., et al., Super-hydrophobic surfaces made from     Teflon, Soft Matter 3 (2007) 426-429 -   22. Feng X, et al., Reversible superhydrophobicity to     super-hydrophilicity transition of aligned ZnO nano-rod films, JACS     Communication 126 (2004) 62-63 -   23. Ma M., et al., Electrospun Poly (Styrene-block-dimetylsiloxane)     block copolymer fibers exhibiting superhydrophobicity, Langmuir,     21 (2005) 5549-5554 -   24. Onda T, et al., Super-water-repellent fractal surfaces,     Langmuir, Vol. 12 Number 9 (1996) 2125-2127 -   25. Mohammadi R., et al., Effect of surfactants on wetting of     super-hydrophobic surfaces, Langmuir, 20 (2004) 9657-9662 -   26. Zhang X., et al., A transparent and photo-patternable     super-hydrophobic film, Chem. Commun (2007) 4949-4951 -   27. Tadanaga K., Morinaga J., Minami T., Formation of     superhydrophobicsuperhydrophilic pattern on flowerlike Alumina thin     film by Sol-gel method, J. of Sol-Gel Science and Technology     19 (2000) 21 1-214 -   28. U.S. Pat. No. 5,102,745, granted Apr. 7, 1992 to Tatarchuk et     al.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Coalescing filters are used to remove small liquid droplets from immiscible liquids and also gases. The droplets are carried into the filter by the flow of the continuous phase where the droplets collide with fine fibers. The droplets are captured on the fibers, coalesce to form larger drops, and the larger drops migrate to the exit surface of the medium. The larger drops are subsequently separated from the gas as by gravity settling.

An aspect of the present invention is to develop filters that can vary with respect to the wettability values thereof by using the different micron sized fibers with hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties. Wettability of a liquid on a flat surface can be related to contact angle and surface tension (or surface energy). Liquids on a high surface energy material have low contact angles (approaching zero) and tend to spread across the surface. Low surface energy materials have high contact angles in the range of from about 90 to about 180 degrees. Polypropylene fibers were selected as hydrophobic fibers (contact angle with water) ˜104°) [7] and micro glass fibers are the hydrophilic fibers (contact angle with water ˜0°) [6]. The filter media has been prepared with different compositions of micro glass and short cut polypropylene fibers. The filter media has been also characterized for their permeability and porosity and effect on wettability.

Measurements of wettability of porous materials such as filter media are not trivial. The size and shape of the pores tend to deform droplets and hence the method of measuring contact angles does not work. Washburn describes a capillary rise method for liquid uptake in a porous medium that is a function of the wettability (surface energy) (Washburn E. W, “The dynamics of capillary flow”, The American Physical Society, Vol. XVII, No. 3, 374-375, 1921).

Washburn's approach results in a measure of wettability through the Lipophilic/Hydrophilic Ratio (L/H). Small values of L/H indicate the surface prefers water to oil and visa versa for large L/H values.

Mixtures of glass fibers and polypropylene fibers show that we can control the L/H value by controlling the mixture composition of glass and polypropylene fibers when constructing a filter medium. FIG. 1 shows a plot of glass percentage versus L/H values.

The concept of mixing fibers of different surface properties to obtain a specific L/H value to control the coalescence properties of the filter medium is an important aspect of this invention.

An embodiment of the present invention relates to a process for removing an immiscible lipophilic or a hydrophilic liquid respectively from a continuous hydrophilic or a lipophilic liquid phase, comprising the steps of: 1) forming a filter comprising a specific weight ratio of hydrophobic fibers to hydrophilic fibers; 2) determining an initial slope of a weight gain take-up versus time plot of the immiscible liquid by said filter; 3) determining an initial slope of weight gain take-up versus time plot of said continuous liquid by said filter; 4) calculating an L/H ratio from said initial slope of the plot of said immiscible liquid and of said initial slope of the plot of said continuous liquid and obtaining a wettability value for each; 5) forming a plurality of filters comprising different weight ratios of said hydrophobic fibers to said hydrophilic fibers from a range of from about 90% by weight of said hydrophobic fibers to about 10% by weight, or any portion thereof, of hydrophobic fibers with the remaining weight percent being said hydrophilic fibers; repeating steps 2), 3), and 4) with respect to each weight ratio of said lipophobic fibers to said hydrophilic fibers in step 5); plotting a wettability range from said L/H wettability values obtained from said plurality of said different weight ratios of said hydrophobic fibers to said hydrophilic fibers; and utilizing a filter having a wetness value within a weight range of from about 20% to about 80% of hydrophobic fibers to hydrophilic fibers to coalesce said immiscible liquid phase within said continuous liquid phase.

Another embodiment of the present invention relates to a process for removing an immiscible lipophilic or a hydrophilic liquid respectively from a continuous hydrophilic or a lipophilic liquid phase, comprising the steps of: forming a filter containing hydrophobic fibers and hydrophilic fibers; flowing said immiscible lipophilic liquid or hydrophilic liquid respectively in said continuous liquid phase hydrophilic liquid or lipophilic liquid through said filter and capturing said immiscible liquid; coalescing said captured immiscible liquid; and removing said coalesced immiscible liquid from said filter.

Yet another embodiment of the present invention relates to a filter for removing an immiscible lipophilic liquid or a hydrophilic liquid respectively from a continuous hydrophilic liquid phase or a continuous lipophilic liquid phase, comprising: a plurality of hydrophobic fibers and a plurality of hydrophilic fibers, said hydrophilic fibers having a wetting value and said hydrophobic fibers having a different wetting value within a liquid system comprising the immiscible lipophilic liquid or the immiscible hydrophilic liquid and respectively the continuous hydrophilic liquid phase or the continuous lipophilic continuous liquid phase; the weight ratio amount of said hydrophobic fibers to said hydrophilic fibers being within a range of from about 80% to about 20% by weight with the remaining weight percent being said hydrophilic fibers and said fiber weight ratio amount being an effective amount to coalesce an immiscible liquid within a continuous liquid phase; and the filter being capable of removing an immiscible liquid from a continuous liquid phase.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a diagram of an L/H value as a function of concentration (percentage) of glass fibers. The data show that changing the composition changes the L/H value giving a method to control the L/H value;

FIG. 2 is a diagram of a mixed fiber filter medium wherein one fiber type is represented by solid lines and the other by dashed lines. The fibers are generally randomly distributed;

FIG. 3 is a diagram of an alternating layers of wetting and non-wetting fibers that are sandwiched together to form the filter wherein (a) the layers lie in a plane parallel to the large surface area of the filter, (b) the layers are perpendicular to the large surface of the filter, (c) the alternating layers are in a circular pattern. The layers may also be at some intermediate angle between parallel and perpendicular to the large surface (not shown in the drawing);

FIG. 4 is a diagram of a weight scale set up to determine the amount of take-up of the immiscible-continuous phase solution of the present invention;

FIG. 5 is a graph showing the wetting kinetics for different glass and PP fiber ratios of a filter with water as the reference liquid;

FIG. 6 is a graph showing wetting kinetics for different glass and PP fiber. ratios of a filter with Viscor oil 1487 as a reference liquid;

FIG. 7 is a graph showing initial wetting kinetics for different glass and PP fiber ratios of a filter with water as a reference liquid;

FIG. 8 is a graph showing initial wetting kinetics for different glass and PP fiber ratios of a filter with Viscor oil 1487 as a reference liquid;

FIG. 9 is a graph showing filter permeability vs. L/H values for different glass and PP fiber ratios of a filter;

FIG. 10 is a graph showing L/H values vs. filter porosity values for different glass and PP fiber ratios of a filter;

FIG. 11 is a graph showing droplet penetration and pressure drop with respect to wettability and L/H values;

FIG. 12 are images showing the wettability of water on silane coated glass rods;

FIG. 13 is an illustration showing different water contact angles;

FIG. 14 is a flow diagram illustrating collecting immiscible water according to the present invention; and

FIG. 15 is a flow diagram for preparing a filter.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS

The filters of the present invention can exist in many sizes, shapes and forms. The one or more hydrophobic fibers and the one or more hydrophilic fibers can generally either be mixed, or exist in separate layers. When mixed, the hydrophilic fibers and the hydrophobic-fiber types are blended so that within a small sample volume of the filter both types of fibers are present such as indicated in FIG. 2. In one embodiment a slurry of the fibers can be vacuum molded to form the filter. Non-woven filters typically have binders (glues) to hold the fiber structure together. Binders tend to stick to one type of fiber or the other. Being of similar chemical materials, the binders often have surface properties similar to the fibers that they stick to which aids in the construction of the filter and its wetting properties. The amounts of binders blended with the fibers are generally in proportion to the amount of each fiber type. Because the fibers are well blended, when the binders glue the fibers together the two types of binders generally become interlocked, forming a continuous filter medium structure. If one type of fiber is significantly more concentrated than the other then only the binder for the most concentrated fiber may be needed. The Washburn measurement as described herein below is conducted on the constructed filter and thus takes into account the presence of the binders.

An alternative method to make the filter with control over the L/H ratio is by utilizing thin layers of fibers of different types. This is shown in FIG. 3. As seen in FIG. 3 a, a filter is made that has alternating layers of a hydrophobic fiber layer and a hydrophilic fiber layer. FIG. 3 b relates to a filter wherein the layers exist perpendicular to a large surface area of the filter. In FIG. 3 c, the filter has alternating layers are in a circular pattern. While not shown, an embodiment very similar to FIG. 3 can exist in that a spiral layers of an alternating hydrophobic layer and a hydrophilic layer can exist that commence at a center point and spiral radially outward and around the center point. The flow of the immiscible liquid contain in with the continuous phase liquid can either flow from top to bottom of FIG. 3 a through the filter, or from end to end generally parallel form the various layers. While the flow can be the same with respect to the filter of FIG. 3 b, the flow is generally perpendicular to the large surface of the filter, i.e. from top to bottom or vise-a-versa. The same is generally true with respect to the filter of FIG. 3 c as well as the spiral filter arrangement.

Numerous types of hydrophobic fibers can be utilized so long as they are inert to the solution or gas they are treating. Hydrophobic fibers generally include polymers such as polyethylene, polypropylene, nomex, polyester such as polyethylene terephthalate, halogen-containing polymers such as Teflon and poly (vinyl chloride), various rubbers including natural rubber, polyisoprene, and polymers derived from butadiene, polyurethanes, polycarbonates, and silicone polymers. Hydrophobic fibers also include various minerals such as zinc oxide, for example zinc oxide nano-rods that are superhydrophobic, and the like. Still additional hydrophobic fibers include various fibers that contain coatings thereon such as various silanes such as (3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane) APTS, (2-carboxymethylthio)ethyltrimethylsilane) CES, and (heptadecafluoro-1,1,2,3-tetrahydrodecyl)trichlorosilane FTS.

Examples of hydrophilic fibers include various types of glasses including sodium glass, boron glass, phosphate glass, B-glass and the like, various minerals such as alumina, titania, and silica, various metals such as aluminum and alloys thereof, various polymers such as cellulose acetate, poly(methylmethacrylate), polyethylene oxide, nylon, and the like. In general, polymers that absorb or swell with water are examples of hydrophilic polymers.

The hydrophobic fibers are generally distinguished from the hydrophilic fibers generally with regard to their wettability, that is, their ability to hold water.

Various tests or methods can be utilized such as the contact angle of water located on a flat surface of the fiber composition. Contact angles less than about 90 degrees or less and generally 20 degrees or less are generally considered to be hydrophilic, whereas contact angles greater than about 90 degrees and generally at least about 120 degrees or greater are considered to be hydrophobic.

The one or more hydrophobic and the one or more hydrophilic fibers, of the present invention, independently, can have various thicknesses such as diameters as from about 0.1 to about 500 microns, desirably from about 0.5 to about 50 microns, and preferably from about 1 to about 10 microns. For this application the fiber diameters are generally about the same so that the pore sizes are about the same throughout the medium. Depending upon the type of fiber, they can generally have smooth surfaces or contain some pores. In general the internal pore structure affects the fiber wettability and is characterized by its contact angle and its performance is characterized by the L/H ratio. Because we are generally characterizing the L/H ratio the characterization of the internal pore structure of the fibers is not essential. It is an important aspect of the present invention that at least one hydrophobic fiber be utilized and that at least one hydrophilic fiber be utilized. That is, the present invention is free of any filters that essentially contain only one type of fiber such as only one hydrophobic-type fiber and no hydrophilic fiber or only one hydrophilic-type of fiber and no hydrophilic fiber. Thus, filters that essentially contain only one type of fiber are excluded from the present invention such as filters that contain small amounts of a second fiber, for exampled less than 5% by weight of a second philic fiber, for example a hydrophilic fiber, or less than about 3% by weight, or less than about 2% by weight, or no amount of a second different type of philic fiber. The reasoning is as set forth hereinabove as well as herein below that the utilization of at least one type of hydrophilic fiber and at least one type of hydrophobic fiber has been found to yield improved and efficient results with regard to removing an immiscible phase from a continuous phase liquid solution.

An important aspect of the present invention is the determination of the wettability value of the filter per se so that proper amounts of hydrophobic and hydrophilic fibers can be utilized that will result in efficient removal of the immiscible liquid or gas from the continuous liquid phase with low pressure drops since high pressure drops can result in expensive pumping cost. That is, high amounts of the immiscible fluids such as water in oil can result in high water saturation on the hydrophilic fibers that reduces porosity and permeability of the filter with the subsequent low porosity leading to excessive pressure drops. An additional disadvantage of high pressure is that high shearing forces within the filter can cause droplet breakup and re-entrainment. Also, high pressure drops result in large forces acting on the filter (pressure drop times filter area) and can cause the filter to collapse, deform, or loose integrity and hence render the filter useless. On the other hand, if the filter overall is too hydrophobic, there will be little or no coalescence of the immiscible fluid; the filter may capture solid particles but it would be ineffective for coalescing drops.

It has been found that traditional contact angles are not suitable for use in the present invention because liquid drops will simultaneously be in contact with multiple fibers, fiber types, and the binder (if present), all of which affect the contact angle. If the fibers are too small in diameter, the capillary action on the immiscible liquid will be affected and not yield a true contact angle. Instead, a liquid penetration approach is used to measure the contact angles of filter media treating the pores of the media as a bundle of uniform capillaries. This method of the liquid penetration is based on the equilibrium capillary pressure and Washburn's equation. Washburn's equation is based on the capillary driving force of a liquid that penetrates a compact vertical bed of particles with small pores and the viscous drag. However, a modified Washburn equation has been found to be suitable. The modified Washburn equation is:

$\begin{matrix} {\frac{L}{H} = \frac{S_{o}n_{o}c_{w}\rho_{w}^{2}Y_{w}}{S_{w}n_{w}c_{o}\rho_{o}^{2}Y_{o}}} & \left( {{Equation}\mspace{14mu} 1} \right) \end{matrix}$

Wherein S_(o) is the initial weight gain take-up slope of the penetrated lipophilic fluid or liquid such as oil, S_(w) is the initial weight gain take-up slope of the penetrated hydrophilic liquid, n_(o) is the viscosity of the lipophilic liquid whereas n_(w) is the viscosity of the hydrophilic fluid. Both c_(o) and c_(w), are the same for a filter medium where c is a geometric constant that accounts for the effective pore diameter and the porosity. When experiments are conducted on the same medium with the organic and water liquids then c_(w) equals c_(o) and cancel out of the equation whereas ρ_(w) is the density of the hydrophilic liquid such as water, and ρ_(o) is the density of the lipophilic liquid such as the oil. Y_(w) is the surface tension of the hydrophilic liquid whereas the Y_(o) is the surface tension of the lipophilic liquid. In order to find the L/H ratio, the slope and hence the amount of take-up of the lipophilic liquid and the hydrophobic liquid must be determined. One method is as follows.

Materials and Filter Media Preparation

The filter samples were made of glass fibers supplied by Hollingsworth and Vose and polypropylene fibers supplied by Minifibers Inc. The slurry of fibers with desired composition was vacuum filtered onto a fine mesh screen in a mold with a hole of inside diameter 2.54 cm. The filter samples were dried and heated in oven for 2 hrs at 100° C. The filter samples were prepared with varying compositions of glass to polypropylene (PP) fibers, i.e. glass: PP of 80:20, 60:40, 50:50, and 40:60. The reference fluids used were Viscor oil 1487 (Rock Valley Oil & Chemical Company) and water. The Viscor oil 1487 is a calibration fluid and has similar properties to that of diesel fuel. Physical properties of water and Viscor oil 1487 are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Physical properties of reference fluids Surface Tension Density Reference Liquid (N/m) (Kg/m³) Viscosity Viscor Oil 1487 0.0285 832 0.00207 (Ns/m²) Water 0.072 998  0.001 (Ns/m²)

Wettability Technique and Approach

The setup for this work is illustrated in FIG. 4. Filters samples were characterized prior to wettability studies for their porosity and permeability. The porosity of the filter samples was measured using a special made pycnometer. The permeability was measured using a Frazier air permeability tester. The dimensions of filter sample were measured using calipers.

In FIG. 4, glass tube 1 was suspended from a wooden plank that is attached to scissors stand 6 which could be raised and lowered using adjustment screw 7. This tube had a tapered diameter which was the same as that of filter 2. Glass beaker 3 with reference liquid 4, with temperature maintained around 23°-25° was placed on the plate of electronic balance 5. A stop watch was placed in front of the electronic balance along with a video camera facing both balance and stop watch.

The tube was descended slowly with a low speed of 1.0 mm/sec. It was carefully done with several manual practices in order to get reproducible results. It was done with the extremity of the tube just touching the reference liquids. The video camera and stop watch were turned on when the filter medium touched the reference liquid to record the change in weight with time. The decline of the glass tube was ended and the liquid rose (penetrated) through the filter until it reached the top of the medium, causing an increase in weight of the cylinder. The video recording was stopped when liquid reached top of the filter medium.

The decrease in weight of the reference liquid on the balance is equal to the liquid taken by the filter media. The rate of decrease in weight of reference liquids on balance was measured until the liquid reached top of the filter. The experimental data was obtained from the recorded video. The weight of liquid raised in the filter media can be obtained for any instant of time until the liquid reaches the top of the filter.

Once the weight gain take-up of the filter has been determined with regard to the lipophilic fluid or liquid, such as an oil, and once it also has been obtained with regard to the hydrophilic liquid such as water, charts of the weight take-up versus time are plotted as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6. In order to obtain L/H ratio that represents a wettability value for a specific weight percent of the hydrophobic fiber and the remaining hydrophilic fiber, a plot is made of the initial take-up slope with regard to time, that is, within the first few seconds of take-up before the take-up curve flattens out. Thus, an initial slope S_(o) is obtained with regard to the oil liquid and a slope S_(w) is obtained with regard to the hydrophilic liquid such as water as set forth in FIGS. 7 and 8. These slope values are then inserted into equation 1 along with the other known values and a specific L/H value is obtained that is referred to as a wettability value with regard to specific amount of hydrophobic fiber and hydrophilic fiber in the filter. Subsequently, the same determination is made with regard to other amounts of hydrophobic fiber to hydrophilic fiber generally across a spectrum of possible weight combinations. For example, hydrophobic fibers to hydrophilic fibers of weight ratios of about 90% to about 10%, about 80% to about 20%, about 70% to about 30%, about 60% to about 40%, about 50% to about 50%, about 40% to about 60%, about 30% to about 70%, and about 20% to about 80%, or about 10% to about 90%; or any portion thereof can be utilized. Once the weight gain take-up has been obtained with regard to the additional weight ratios of hydrophilic fiber/hydrophobic fibers, and plotted against time, the initial weight gain slope is obtained and inserted into formula 1. These L/H values are inversely related to wettability values as shown in FIG. 11. The L/H values are then plotted against droplet penetration values where penetration is defined as the concentration of uncoalesced droplets carried out of the filter divided by the concentration of the incoming droplets. Hence, a high penetration means that most of the incoming droplets are unaffected (do not coalesce) and the low penetration means that most of the incoming droplets do coalesce. Measurement of droplet penetration is not standardized but there are methods to make the measurements that are common. For example, a particle counter (AccuSizer 780; PSS-NIComp Particle Sizing Systems, Santa Barbara, Calif.) was utilized to monitor particle sizes and concentrations in and out of the filter. However, because drops can coalesce and change size in the filter, the overall separation performance was utilized to determine the Quality Factor. This means the quality factor characterizes the performance of both the filter and the downstream separator (settling tank, hydrocyclone, etc.). The amount of the dispersed phase (water) entering the filter was controlled using a syringe pump. The amount of water separated from by the downstream separator was measured by decanting and weighing the amount of water that was separated. The outlet stream can further be sent to another downstream separator such as a settling tank and the amount of water not separated can be measured. The two outlet masses of water should sum to the inlet. The ratio of the mass-out/mass-in is equal to the ratio of the concentrations (by dividing by the same volume of continuous phase fluid) hence the penetration is calculated and plotted in FIG. 11 with respect to L/H values and generally relate to a slope that curves downwardly, (i.e. a negative slope) as the weight ratio of hydrophilic fibers to hydrophobic fibers increases.

Also plotted in FIG. 11 is the pressure drop of the immiscible liquid continuous phase liquid system through the filter with different weight ratios of hydrophobic fiber to hydrophilic fiber. A curve is obtained that increases with increasing hydrophilic fiber ratios to hydrophobic fiber ratios inasmuch as the pressure drop increases with wettability. The combination of these two curves is given by the negative log of the penetration divided by the pressure drop and yields an inverse “U” curve or “quality factor” curve. This quality curve yields a good indication of a range of suitable hydrophobic to hydrophilic fiber weight ratios that can be utilized to obtain good extraction of the immiscible fluid a liquid from the immiscible liquid-continuous liquid phase solution and yet not obtain blocking of the filter or excessive pressure drop due to the build up of the immiscible fluid on the immiscible fluid loving type of fibers. Conversely, high ratios of hydrophobic fibers to hydrophilic fibers yield low pressure drops since there is no build up of water on the hydrophobic fibers. Permeability is determined by passing gas or liquid at a known flow rate and the pressure drop is measured. The permeability is then calculated from Darcy's Law. Accordingly, the filters of the present invention generally have a wettability range or a quality factor that lies within a hydrophobic fiber to hydrophilic fiber weight ratios from 20 percent to about 80 percent, desirably from about 30 percent to about 70 percent and preferably from about 35 percent to about 65 percent.

The above scenario will now be discussed with regard to a specific immiscible liquid, i.e. water and a continuous phase oil, as well as specific amounts of hydrophilic fibers such as glass and hydrophobic fibers such as polypropylene.

FIGS. 5 and 6 summarize some of the wetting kinetics results based on capillary rise respectively of water and Viscor oil 1487 for the filter media comprising varying compositions of micro glass and polypropylene fibers. FIGS. 7 and 8 show the initial wetting kinetics results for water and Viscor oil 1487. From these figures, the values of slopes S_(o) and S_(w), are obtained and incorporated into equation 1 to calculate specific L/H wettability values. Smaller values of L/H indicate that filter media is preferentially water wetting and larger values of L/H indicate preferentially oil wetting filter media. It is noted that, as the amount of polypropylene fibers in filter media increases, the L/H value increases and that L/H values decrease with increasing amounts of glass fibers. The glass fiber only filter has the lowest L/H value. The effect of filter permeability and porosity on wettability of the filter is analyzed in FIGS. 9 and 10 respectively wherein permeability and porosity increase with additional polypropylene fibers in the filter as does the L/H values. Porosity can be determined using an air/water displacement experiment or by using a pycnometer. Suitable L/H ratios range from about 1 to about 3,000, generally from about 2 to about 2,000, desirably from about 2 to about 200, and preferably from about 2 or about 5 to about 150.

Once a specific lipophobic-hydrophilic system has been analyzed with regard to removal of an immiscible component thereof, other weight ratios of hydrophobic fibers to hydrophilic fiber systems can be analyzed in the same manner as set forth above to determine what types of hydrophobic fiber hydrophilic fiber system are the most efficient. That is, the above steps as for example set forth in FIGS. 4 through 8 can be repeated and the most efficient fiber ratio used for the filter. Filters can thus be designed that have different wetting properties due to different amounts of hydrophobic and hydrophilic fibers in filter. These filter media can be characterized by using the Modified Washburn equation and wettability can be represented in terms of a Lipophilic to Hydrophilic ratio. Thus, the results obtained from the above noted procedures are used to design a filter with optimum wettability range of wetting properties for the separation immiscible fluids from continuous phase liquids.

For example, Table 2 sets for L/H values obtained for layers of hydrophobic/hydrophilic fiber media such as those set forth above utilizing water and Viscor Oil 1487. That is, the various hydrophobic/hydrophilic fiber systems were made containing the fiber ratios as set forth in Table 2 and the L/H values calculated. For the above-noted immiscible water-continuous oil system, a ratio of 80% by weight of glass fibers to 20% by weight of propylene fibers yielded a value of 7.021. When tested, as set forth in Table 3, this ratio gave a good efficiency of water coalescence of 0.91 and a low pressure drop of 18.34 resulting in a quality factor or 0.132 that was very good. Table 4 relates to L/H values for glass fiber filters containing a binder thereon whereas Table 5 relates to L/H values for mixed (i.e. non layered) hydrophilic/hydrophobic fiber filters. Thus, utilizing the above procedures, different immiscible liquid-continuous liquid phase systems can be tested and filters designed to yield high amount of take up of the immiscible liquid with a fairly low amount of a pressure drop.

TABLE 2 L/H values for layered hydrophilic/hydrophobic fiber media Composition (Glass:PP) L/H G (100) 1.830 G:PP (80:20) 7.021 G:PP (60:40) 8.652 G:PP (50:50) 17.438 G:PP (40:60) 22.879 G:PP (20:80 36.981

TABLE 3 Liquid-liquid coalescence results Steady state Composition Pressure Drop Quality Factor (Glass:PP) L/H Efficiency (kPa) (kPa⁻¹) 100% Glass 1.83 0.84 (±0.02) 20.39 (±3.02) 0.106 (with binder) G:PP (80:20) 7.02 0.91 (±0.02) 18.34 (±3.3)  0.132

TABLE 4 L/H values for glass fiber filters showing effect of binder Composition (Glass:PP) L/H With Binder 1.83 Binder on outside edge 1.26 Without binder 1.49

TABLE 5 L/H values of mixed hydrophilic/hydrophobic fiber filters Composition (Glass:PP) L/H Glass 1.296 G:PP (80:20) 1.984 G:PP (60:40) 2.744 G:PP (50:50) 89.787 G:PP (40:60) 148.742

In summary, the above procedures of the present invention relate to the extraction of an immiscible liquid from a different continuous phase liquid in a filter essentially by three steps; that of capture, coalescence, and removal. As the liquid system moves through the filter, small droplets of an immiscible fluid, such as water, attach and adhere to a hydrophilic fiber such as glass. Continued flow of the liquid system results in additional water build up on the hydrophilic fibers. That is, immiscible water is coalesced into larger droplets. Finally, a droplet size is reached such that it no longer adheres to the hydrophilic fiber due to the flow of the liquid system but detaches itself. The size of the large droplet will naturally vary with regard to the immiscible fluid be it a hydrophilic liquid such as water or hydrophobic liquid such as oil, and the wettability of the droplet on the hydrophilic fiber or hydrophobic fiber as the case may be. Generally such droplet sizes can range from about 5 to about 500 microns, and desirably within a range of from about 20 to about 100 microns. Removal of the large water droplets can be achieved by a number of methods, generally non-mechanical, such as collection of the large droplets in a gravity separator. Other collection methods include hydrocyclones, membrane separators, and absorbers. Thus, the present invention preferably is free of or does not utilize mechanism collection methods such as centrifuge, etc. Putting a coalescing filter upstream of these other devices can help the other devices to be more efficient, smaller in size, and less expensive to operate.

With regard to the coalescence filters of the present invention, other preparation factors include fluid velocity, fiber structure, fiber geometry, surface properties, fluid properties, and bed length (determines the filter efficiency). Liquid-liquid coalescence wettability of the fibers is also known to have effect on filter performance, especially when interfacial tension between phases is low. Wettability of fibers can be defined as ability of filter fibers to hold water. Wettability also depends on surface properties of fibers and porosity of the filter.

An optional aspect of the present invention is to utilize coating agents on the fibers such as silanes for making hydrophobic surfaces. FIG. 12 shows the effects of various different silanes coated on glass rods with regard to water wetting. The top row shows that untreated glass rods have high wetting. The second row from the top shows that moderate wetting is obtained whereas the third row from the top shows that only fair wetting is obtained whereas the bottom row shows that drops do not readily attach to the treated fiber and are quickly removed before a coalescence can occur.

As above noted, FIG. 11 relates to a chart that can be utilized to select ratios of hydrophobic and hydrophilic fibers to be utilized in making the coalescing filters of the present invention according to the above-noted procedures. The chart shows that at high hydrophilic fiber content the pressure drop is generally large and that at the large hydrophobic fiber content the L/H ratio is high. Thus, in order to obtain good removal of the immiscible liquid a water wetting content in the center portion of the wettability range is usually desired.

FIG. 13 is a diagram showing different contact angles with respect to high wetting, intermediate wetting, and low wetting as well as the coalescence of small droplets on the fiber. The top row relates to high wetting wherein the water contact angle is about 0°, the middle row relates to intermediate wetting wherein the water contact angle is less than about 90° and the bottom row relates to a low wetting wherein the water contact angle is high, i.e. above 120° C.

FIG. 14 relates to a hypothetical filter media design showing the droplets of immiscible fluid entering a filter, being captured on various fibers, coalescing, and then essentially dropping out a solution and being separated in a gravity settling tank.

Immiscible liquids include oil and water, produced water, fuels (diesel, gasoline, jet fuel) and water, Complete immiscibility is rare (some water is found in the oil phase and some oil in the water) but for the purposes of this patent it is sufficient that two or more distinctive liquid phases form. Perry's handbook (R. H. Perry, D. W. Green, J. O. Maloney, Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 6th ed, McGraw-Hill, NY 1984, pages 15-9 thru 15-13) a table of solvents used in liquid-liquid extraction gives an extensive list of two liquid phase systems (solvent A and solvent S). These tables are hereby fully incorporated by reference. However, they are also reproduced as Table 6.

TABLE 6 Selected List of Ternary Systems Component A = feed solvent, component B = solute, and component S = extraction solvent. K1 is the distribution coefficient in weight-fraction solute y/x for the tie line of lowest solute concentration reported. Ordinarily, K will approach unity as the solute concentration is increased. TABLE 15-5 Selected List of Ternary Systems Component A = feed solvent, component B = solute, and component S = extraction solvent. K₁ is the distribution coefficient in weight-fraction solute y/x for the tie line of lowest solute concentration reported. Ordinarily, K will approach unity as the solute concentration is increased. Component B Component S Temp., ° C. K₁ Ref. A = cetane Benzene Aniline 25 1.290 47 n-Heptane Aniline 25 0.0784 47 A = cottonseed oil Oleic acid Propane 85 0.150 46 93.5 0.1272 46 A = cyclohexane Benzene Furfural 25 0.630 44 Benzene Nitromethane 25 0.397 127 A = docosane 1,6-Diphenylherane Furfural 45 0.950 11 80 1.100 11 115 1.062 11 A = dodecane Methylnaphthalene β,β′-Iminodipropionitrile ca. 25 0.625 92 Methylnaphthalene β,β′-Oxydipropionitrile ca. 25 0.377 92 A = ethylbenzene Styrene Ethylene glycol 25 0.190 10 A = ethylene glycol Acetone Amyl acetate 31 1.838 86 Acetone n-Butyl acetate 31 1.940 86 Acetone Cyclohexane 27 0.508 86 Acetone Ethyl acetate 31 1.850 86 Acetone Ethyl butyrate 31 1.903 86 Acetone Ethyl propionate 31 2.32 86 A = furfural Trilimolein n-Heptane 30 47.5 15 50 21.4 15 70 19.5 15 Triolein n-Heptane 30 95 15 50 108 15 70 41.5 15 A = glycerol Ethanol Benzene 25 0.159 62 Ethanol Carbon tetrachloride 25 0.0887 63 A = n-heptane Benzene Ethylene glycol 25 0.300 50 125 0.316 50 Benzene β,β′-thiodipropionitrile 25 0.350 92 Benzene Triethylene glycol 25 0.351 89 Cyclohexane Aniline 25 0.0815 47 Cyclohexane Benzyl alcohol 0 0.107 29 15 0.267 29 Cyclohexane Dimethylformamide 20 0.1320 28 Cyclohexane Furfural 30 0.0635 78 Ethylbenzene Dipropylene glycol 25 0.329 90 Ethylbenzene β,β′-Oxydipropionitrile 25 0.180 101 Ethylbenzene β,β′-Thiodipropionitrile 25 0.100 101 Ethylbenzcne Triethylene glycol 25 0.140 89 Methylcyclohexane Aniline 25 0.057 116 Toluene Aniline 0 0.577 27 13 0.477 27 20 0.457 27 40 0.425 27 Toluene Benzyl alcohol 0 0.694 29 Toluene Dimethylformamide 0 0.667 28 20 0.514 28 Toluene Dipropylene glycol 25 0.331 90 Toluene Ethylene glycol 25 0.150 101 Toluene Propylene carbonate 20 0.732 39 Toluene β,β′-Thiodipropionitrile 25 0.150 101 Toluene Triethylene glycol 25 0.289 89 m-Xylene β,β′-Thiodipropionitrile 25 0.050 101 o-Xylene β,β′-Thiodipropionitrile 25 0.150 101 p-Xylene β,β′-Thiodipropionitrile 25 0.030 101 A = n-hexane Benzene Ethylenediamine 20 4.14 23 A = nco-hexane Cyclopentane Aniline 15 0.1259 96 25 0.311 96 A = methylcyclohexane Toluene Methylperfluorooctanoate 10 0.1297 58 25 0.200 58 A = isooctane Benzene Furfural 25 0.833 44 Cyclohexane Furfural 25 0.1076 44 n-Hexane Furfural 30 0.083 78 A = perfluoroheptane Perfluorocyclic oxide Carbon tetrachloride 30 0.1370 58 Perfluorocyclic oxide n-Heptane 30 0.329 58 A = perfluoro-n-hexane n-Hexane Benzene 30 6.22 80 n-Hexane Carbon disulfide 25 6.50 80 A = perfluorotri-n-butylamine Iso-octane Nitroethane 25 3.59 119 31.5 2.36 119 33.7 4.56 119 A = toluene Acetone Ethylene glycol 0 0.286 100 24 0.326 100 A = triethylene glycol α-Picotine Methylcyclohexane 20 3.87 14 α-Picotine Diisobutylene 20 0.445 14 α-Picotine Mixed heptanes 20 0.317 14 A = triolein Oleic acid Propane 85 0.138 40 A = water Acetaldehyde n-Amyl alcohol 18 1.43 74 Acetaldehyde Benzene 18 1.119 74 Acetaldehyde Furfural 16 0.007 74 Acetaldehyde Toluene 17 0.478 74 Acetaldehyde Vinyl acetate 20 0.560 81 Acetic acid Benzene 25 0.0328 43 30 0.0984 38 40 0.1022 38 50 0.0558 38 60 0.0637 38 Acetic acid 1-Butanol 26.7 1.613 102 Acetic acid Butyl acetate 30 0.705 45 0.391 67 Acetic acid Caproic acid 25 0.349 73 Acetic acid Carbon tetrachloride 27 0.1920 91 27.5 0.0549 54 Acetic acid Chloroform ca. 25 0.178 70 25 0.0865 72 56.8 0.1573 17 Acetic acid Creosote oil 34 0.706 91 Acetic acid Cyclohexanol 26.7 1.325 102 Acetic acid Diisobutyl ketone 25-26 0.284 75 Acetic acid Di-n-butyl ketone 25-26 0.379 75 Acetic acid Diisopropyl carbinol 25-26 0.800 75 Acetic acid Ethyl acetate 30 0.907 30 Acetic acid 2-Ethylbutyric acid 25 0.323 73 Acetic acid 2-Ethylhexnic acid 25 0.286 73 Acetic acid Ethylidene diacetate 25 0.85 104 Acetic acid Ethyl propionate 28 0.510 87 Acetic acid Fenchone 25-26 0.310 75 Acetic acid Furfural 26.7 0.787 102 Acetic acid Heptadecanol 25 0.312 114 50 0.1623 114 Acetic acid 3-Heptanol 25 0.828 76 Acetic add Hexane acetate 25-26 0.520 75 Acetic acid Hexane 31 0.0167 85 Acetic acid Isoamyl acetate 25-26 0.343 75 Acetic acid Isophorone 25-26 0.858 75 Acetic acid Isopropyl ether 20 0.248 31 25-26 0.429 75 Acetic acid Methyl acetate — 1.273 67 Acetic acid Methyl butyrate 30 0.690 66 Acetic acid Methyl cyclohexanone 25-26 0.930 75 Acetic acid Methylisobutyl carbinol 30 1.058 83 Acetic acid Methylisobutyl ketone 25 0.657 97 25-26 0.753 75 Acetic acid Monochlorobenzene 25 0.0435 77 Acetic acid Octyl acetate 25-26 0.1805 75 Acetic acid n-Propyl acetate — 0.638 67 Acetic acid Toluene 23 0.0644 131 Acetic acid Trichloroethylene 27 0.140 91 30 0.0549 54 Acetic acid Vinyl acetate 28 0.294 103 Acetone Amyl acetate 30 1.228 117 Acetone Benzene 15 0.940 11 30 0.862 11 45 0.725 11 Acetone n-Butyl acetate — 1.127 67 Acetone Carbon tetrachloride 30 0.238 12 Acetone Chloroform 25 1.830 43 25 1.720 3 Acetone Dibutyl ether 25.26 1.941 75 Acetone Diethyl ether 30 1.00 54 Acetone Ethyl acetate 30 1.500 117 Acetone Ethyl butyrate 30 1.278 117 Acetone Ethyl propionate 30 1.385 117 Acetone n-Heptane 25 0.274 112 Acetone n-Hexane 25 0.343 114 Acetone Methyl acetate 30 1.153 117 Acetone Methylisobutyl ketone 25-26 1.910 75 Acetone Monochlorobenzene 25-26 1.000 75 Acetone Propyl acetate 30 0.243 117 Acetone Tetrachloroethane 25-26 2.37 57 Acetone Tetrachloroethylene 30 0.237 88 Acetone 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 25 1.467 113 Acetone Toluene 25-26 0.835 75 Acetone Vinyl acetate 20 1.237 81 25 3.63 104 Acetone Xylene 25-26 0.659 75 Allyl alcohol Diallyl ether 22 0.572 32 Aniline Benzene 25 14.40 40 50 15.50 40 Aniline n-Heptane 25 1.425 40 50 2.20 40 Aniline Methylcyclohexane 25 2.05 40 50 3.41 40 Aniline Nitrobenzene 25 18.69 108 Aniline Toluene 25 12.91 107 Aniline hydrochloride Aniline 25 0.0540 98 Benzoic acid Methylisobutyl ketone 26.7 76.9* 49 iso-Butanol Benzene 25 0.989 1 iso-Butanol 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 25 1.80 38 iso-Butanol Tetrachloroethylene 25 0.0460 7 n-Butanol Benzene 25 1.263 126 35 2.12 126 n-Butanol Toluene 30 1.176 37 tert-Butanol Benzene 25 0.401 99 tert-Butanol tert-Butyl hypochlorite 0 0.1393 130 20 0.1487 130 40 0.200 129 60 0.539 129 tert-Butanol Ethyl acetate 20 1.74 5 2-Butoxyethanol Methylethyl ketone 25 3.05 68 2,3-Butylene glycol n-Butanol 26 0.597 71 50 0.893 71 2,3-Butylene glycol Butyl acetate 26 0.0222 71 50 0.0325 71 2,3-Butylene glycol Butylene glycol diacetate 26 0.1328 71 75 0.565 71 2,3-Butylene glycol Methylvinyl carbinol acetate 26 0.237 71 50 0.351 71 75 0.247 71 n-Butylamine Monochlorobenzene 25 1.391 77 t-Butyraldehyde Ethyl acetate 37.8 41.3 52 Butyric acid Methyl butyrate 30 6.75 66 Butyric acid Methylisobutyl carbinol 30 12.12 83 Cobaltous chloride Dioxane 25 0.0052 93 Cupric sulfate n-Butanol 30 0.000501 9 Cupric sulfate sec-Butanol 30 0.00702 9 Cupric sulfate Mixed pentanols 30 0.000225 9 p-Cresol Methylnaphthalene 35 9.89 62 Diacetone alcohol Ethylbenzene 25 0.335 22 Diacetone alcohol Styrene 25 0.445 22 Dichloroacetic acid Monochlorobenzene 25 0.0690 77 1,4-Dioxane Benzene 25 1.020 8 Ethanol n-Amyl alcohol 25-28 0.598 75 Ethanol Benzene 25 0.1191 13 25 0.0536 115 Ethanol n-Butanol 20 3.00 26 Ethanol Cyclohexane 25 0.0157 118 Ethanol Cyclohexene 25 0.0244 124 Ethanol Dibutyl ether 25-26 0.1458 75 Ethanol Di-n-propyl ketone 25-26 0.592 75 Ethanol Ethyl acetate 0 0.0263 5 20 0.500 5 70 0.455 41 Ethanol Ethyl isovalerate 25 0.392 13 Ethanol Heptadecanol 25 0.270 114 Ethanol a-Heptane 30 0.274 94 Ethanol 3-Heptanol 25 0.783 76 Ethanol n-Hexane 25 0.00212 111 Ethanol n-Hexanol 28 1.00 56 Ethanol sec-Octanol 28 0.825 56 Ethanol Toluene 25 0.01816 122 Ethanol Trichloroethylene 25 0.0662 16 Ethylene glycol n-Amyl alcohol 20 0.1159 59 Ethylene glycol n-Butanol 27 0.412 85 Ethylene glycol Furfural 25 0.315 18 Ethylene glycol n-Hexanol 20 0.275 59 Ethylene glycol Methylethyl ketone 30 0.0527 85 Formic acid Chloroform 25 0.00445 72 50.9 0.0192 17 Formic acid Methylisobutyl carbinol 30 1.218 83 Furfural n-Butane 51.5 0.712 42 79.5 0.930 42 Furfural Methylisobutyl ketone 25 7.10 19 Furfural Toluene 25 5.64 53 Hydrogen chloride iso-Amyl alcohol 25 0.170 21 Hydrogen chloride 2,6-Dimethyl-4-heptanol 25 0.266 21 Hydrogen chloride 2-Ethyl-1-butanol 25 0.534 21 Hydrogen chloride Ethylbutyl ketone 25 0.01515 79 Hydrogen chloride 3-Heptanol 25 0.0250 21 Hydrogen chloride 1-Hexanol 25 0.345 21 Hydrogen chloride 2-Methyl-1-butanol 25 0.470 21 Hydrogen chloride Methylisobutyl ketone 25 0.0273 70 Hydrogen chloride 2-Methyl-1-pentanol 25 0.502 21 Hydrogen chloride 2-Methyl-2-pentanol 25 0.411 21 Hydrogen chloride Methylisopropyl ketone 25 0.0814 79 Hydrogen chloride 1-Octanol 25 0.424 21 Hydrogen chloride 2-Octanol 25 0.380 21 Hydrogen chloride 1-Pantanol 25 0.257 21 Hydrogen chloride Pentanols (mixed) 25 0.271 21 Hydrogen Buoride Methylisobutyl ketone 25 0.370 79 Lactic acid iso-Amyl alcohol 25 0.352 128 Methanol Benzene 25 0.01022 4 Methanol n-Butanol 0 0.600 65 15 0.479 65 30 0.510 65 45 1.260 65 60 0.682 65 Methanol p-Cresol 35 0.313 82 Methanol Cyclohexane 25 0.0150 125 Methanol Cyclohexane 25 0.01043 124 Methanol Ethyl acetate 0 0.0589 5 20 0.238 5 Methanol n-Hexanol 28 0.585 55 Methanol Methylnaphthalene 25 0.025 82 35 0.0223 82 Methanol sec-Octanol 28 0.584 55 Methanol Phenol 25 1.333 82 Methanol Toluene 25 0.0099 60 Methanol Trichloroethylene 27.5 0.0167 54 Methyl-n-butyl ketone n-Butanol 37.8 53.4 52 Methylethyl ketone Cyclohexane 25 1.775 48 30 3.60 85 Methylethyl ketone Casoline 25 1.686 64 Methylethyl ketone n-Heptane 25 1.548 112 Methylethyl ketone n-Hexane 25 1.775 112 37.8 2.22 52 Methylethyl ketone 2-Methyl furan 25 84.0 109 Methylethyl ketone Monochlorobenzene 25 2.36 68 Methylethyl ketone Naphtha 28.7 0.885† 6 Methylethyl ketone 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 25 3.44 68 Methylethyl ketone Trichloroethylene 25 3.87 68 Methylethyl ketone 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 25 1.572 64 Nickelous chloride Dioxane 25 0.0017 93 Nicotine Carbon tetrachloride 25 9.50 34 Phenol Methylnaphthalene 23 7.00 82 a-Picoline Benzene 20 8.75 14 a-Picoline Diisobutylene 20 1.360 14 a-Picoline Heptanes (mixed) 20 1.378 14 a-Picoline Methylcylohoxane 20 1.00 14 iso-Propanol Benzene 25 0.276 69 iso-Propanol Carbon tetrachloride 20 1.405 25 iso-Propanol Cyclohexane 25 0.0282 123 iso-Propanol Cyclohexane 15 0.0583 124 25 0.0682 124 35 0.1875 124 iso-Propanol Diisopropyl ether 25 0.406 35 iso-Propanol Ethyl acetate 0 0.200 5 20 1.205 5 iso-Propanol Tetrachloroethylene 25 0.388 7 iso-Propanol Toluene 25 0.1296 121 n-Propanol iso-Amyl alcohol 25 3.34 20 n-Propanol Benzene 37.8 0.650 61 n-Propanol n-Butanol 37.8 3.61 61 n-Propanol Cyclohexane 25 0.1553 123 35 0.1775 123 n-Propanol Ethyl acetate 0 1.419 5 20 1.542 5 n-Propanol n-Heptane 37.8 0.540 61 n-Propanol n-Hexane 37.8 0.320 61 n-Propanol n-Propyl acetate 20 1.55 106 35 2.14 106 n-Propanol Toluene 25 0.299 2 Propionic acid Benzene 30 0.598 57 Propionic acid Cyclohexane 31 0.1955 84 Propionic acid Cyclohexene 31 0.303 84 Propionic acid Ethyl acetate 30 2.77 87 Propionic acid Ethyl butyrate 26 1.470 87 Propionic acid Ethyl propionate 28 0.510 87 Propionic acid Hexane (mixed) 31 0.186 84 Propionic acid Methyl butyrate 30 2.15 68 Propionic acid Methylisobutyl carbinol 30 3.52 83 Propionic acid Methylisobutyl ketone 26.7 1.949* 49 Propionic acid Monochlorobenzene 30 0.513 57 Propionic acid Tetrachloroethylene 31 0.167 84 Propionic acid Toluene 31 0.515 84 Propionic acid Trichloroethylene 30 0.496 57 Pyridine Benzene 15 2.19 110 25 3.00 105 25 2.73 120 45 2.49 110 60 2.10 110 Pyridine Monochlorobenzene 25 2.10 77 Pyridine Toluene 25 1.900 120 Pyridine Xylene 25 1.260 120 Sodium chloride iso-Butanol 25 0.0182 36 Sodium chloride n-Ethyl-sec-butyl amine 32 0.0583 24 Sodium chloride n-Ethyl-tert-butyl amine 40 0.1792 24 Sodium chloride 2-Ethylhexyl amine 30 0.187 24 Sodium chloride 1-Methyldiethyl amine 39.1 0.0597 24 Sodium chloride 1-Methyldodecyl amine 30 0.693 24 Sodium chloride n-Methyl-1,3-dimethylbutyl amine 30 0.0537 24 Sodium chloride 1-Methyloctyl amine 30 0.589 24 Sodium chloride tert-Nonyl amine 30 0.0318 24 Sodium chloride 1,1,3,3-Tetramethyl butyl amine 30 0.072 24 Sodium hydroxide iso-Butanol 25 0.00857 36 Sodium nitrate Dioxane 25 0.0246 95 Succinic acid Ethyl ether 15 0.220 33 20 0.193 33 25 0.1805 33 Trimethyl amine Benzene 25 0.857 51 70 2.36 51 *Concentrations in lb-moles/cu. ft. †Concentrations in volume fraction.

While in accordance with the patent statutes the best mode and preferred embodiment have been set forth, the scope of the invention is not intended to be limited thereto, but only by the scope of the attached claims. 

What is claimed is:
 1. A process for removing an immiscible lipophilic or a hydrophilic liquid respectively from a continuous hydrophilic or a lipophilic liquid phase, comprising the steps of: forming a filter containing hydrophobic fibers and hydrophilic fibers; flowing said immiscible lipophilic liquid or hydrophilic liquid respectively in said continuous liquid phase hydrophilic liquid or lipophilic liquid through said filter and capturing said immiscible liquid; coalescing said captured immiscible liquid; and removing said coalesced immiscible liquid from said filter.
 2. The process of claim 1, wherein the weight ratio of said hydrophobic fibers to said hydrophilic fibers is from about 90% to about 10% by weight with the remaining weight percent being said hydrophilic fibers, and wherein said filter has a wettability L/H ratio of from about 1 to about 3,000.
 3. The process of claim 2, wherein said L/H ratio is from about 2 to about 200, and wherein the fiber diameters of said hydrophobic fibers and said hydrophilic fibers, independently, is from about 0.1 to about 500 microns.
 4. The process of claim 3, wherein said fiber diameter of said hydrophobic fibers and said hydrophilic fibers, independently, is from about 0.5 to about 50 microns.
 5. The process of claim 4, wherein the weight ratio of said hydrophobic fibers to said hydrophilic fibers ranges from about 70% to about 30% by weight with the remaining weight percent being said hydrophilic fibers, wherein said fiber diameter of said hydrophobic and said hydrophilic fibers, independently, is from about 1 to about 10 microns, and wherein said L/H ratio is from about 2 to about
 150. 6. The process of claim 1, wherein said hydrophobic fibers include comprise one or more polymers including polyethylene, polypropylene, nomex, polyester, a halogen-containing polymer, rubber, polyurethane, polycarbonate, or a silicone polymer; one or more minerals such as zinc oxide; and fibers that contain silane coatings thereon; and wherein said hydrophilic fibers comprise one or more glasses including sodium glass, boron glass, phosphate glass, or B-glass; one or more minerals including alumina, titania, or silica; one or more metals including aluminum or aluminum alloys; and one or more polymers including cellulose acetate, poly(methylmethacrylate), polyethylene oxide, or nylon.
 7. The process of claim 5, wherein said hydrophobic fibers include polyethylene, polypropylene, or polyester, and halogen-containing fibers, and wherein said hydrophilic fibers comprise glass fibers.
 8. A filter for removing an immiscible lipophilic liquid or a hydrophilic liquid respectively from a continuous hydrophilic liquid phase or a continuous lipophilic liquid phase, comprising: a plurality of hydrophobic fibers and a plurality of hydrophilic fibers, said hydrophilic fibers having a wetting value and said hydrophobic fibers having a different wetting value within a liquid system comprising the immiscible lipophilic liquid or the immiscible hydrophilic liquid and respectively the continuous hydrophilic liquid phase or the continuous lipophilic continuous liquid phase; the weight ratio amount of said hydrophobic fibers to said hydrophilic fibers being within a range of from about 80% to about 20% by weight with the remaining weight percent being said hydrophilic fibers and said fiber weight ratio amount being an effective amount to coalesce an immiscible liquid within a continuous liquid phase; and the filter being capable of removing an immiscible liquid from a continuous liquid phase.
 9. The filter of claim 8, wherein said filter has an L/H ratio of from about 2 to about 2,000.
 10. The filter of claim 9, wherein said filter has an L/H ratio of from about 2 to about 200, wherein the weight ratio of said hydrophobic fibers to said hydrophilic fibers is from about 70% to about 30% by weight, and wherein said hydrophobic and said hydrophilic fibers, independently, have a fiber diameter of from about 0.1 to about 500 microns.
 11. The filter of claim 10, wherein said L/H ratio is from about 2 to about 150, and wherein said fiber diameter of said hydrophobic fibers and hydrophilic fibers, independently, is from about 1 to about 10 microns.
 12. The filter of claim 8, wherein said hydrophobic fibers include polymers comprise one or more polymers including polyethylene, polypropylene, nomex, polyester, a halogen-containing polymer, rubber, polyurethane, polycarbonate, or a silicone polymer; one or more minerals such as zinc oxide; and fibers that contain silane coatings thereon; and wherein said hydrophilic fibers comprise one or more glasses including sodium glass, boron glass, phosphate glass, or 8-glass; one or more minerals including alumina, titania, or silica; one or more metals including aluminum or aluminum alloys; and one or more polymers including cellulose acetate, poly(methylmethacrylate), polyethylene oxide, or nylon.
 13. The filter of claim 11, wherein said hydrophobic fibers include polyethylene, polypropylene, or polyester, and halogen-containing fibers, and wherein said hydrophilic fibers comprise glass fibers. 